Data is always fun

lmkwin

Index membership is something that changes more frequently than one may think. I've put a request in to StockCharts inquiring as to how often they update their constituents? Wasn't looking, but stumbled upon one that was removed from the Index in April, but showing as still IN the index according to StockCharts. I'll update this with the response.

markd

I've found they respond pretty quickly to data issues. But, there are too many of them. Often stocks are unclassified by sector and/or industry, or misclassified. Considering there are several thousand stocks and new ones coming to market, or merging, or renaming themselves, and that many companies are actually in several businesses across different sectors or industries, I guess its not surprising. You would think the required info would be supplied by data vendors, but apparently not. It probably needs to be a dedicated position, but maybe its delegated to newbies or people already maxxed out who just get to it when they can (just guessing).

lmkwin

Data is very important but not exciting. ACP, now that is exciting!!!!! Another website that I used promised users that it would be the pre-eminent source of ETF data. Of course, nobody inside had that mission. Their data was stale. When questioned about it, they decided to shut down the site. AllETF.com was the site. It was run by Dorsey Wright pre-sale to Nasdaq but post-sale to a private equity firm.

FYI, I also found this data issue on an index member on the Nasdaq Dorsey Wright Website at the same time. Now, THAT site is owned and operated by Nasdaq. So, one can only wonder if data integrity really runs all that deep. A newbie deciding is a fun thought to ponder.

markd

Here's a scan to find stocks w/o sector assignment traded on NYSE or NASD and market cap over 100 million.

Stockcharts now imports a company description (from 10Ks, I think) to display on ACP, so there's not too much excuse not to have them updated - and there is always yahoo and finviz and market watch and others to check if its not obvious how to classify a symbol (although, sometimes, they don't have it, either). It just has to be a priority.

Today it gets 162 hits:

// 00 40 80 rank NO SECTOR STOCKS by VOL PRI ROC 63 21 10


[[exchange is NYSE] or [exchange is NASDAQ]]
and [type is stock]
//and [market cap > 200]
and [market cap > 100]
and [symbol not contains '/']

and [group is not ETF]
and [name not contains 'Fund']
and [name not contains 'ETN']
and [name not contains 'Trust']
and [name not contains 'Cohen']
and [name not contains 'Income']
and [name not contains 'Legg']
and [name not contains 'Eaton']
and [name not contains 'Notes']
and [name not contains 'Series']
and [name not contains 'Gabelli']

and [group is not EnergySector]
and [group is not MaterialsSector]
and [group is not IndustrialSector]
and [group is not CyclicalsSector]
and [group is not ConsumerStaplesSector]
and [group is not HealthCareSector]
and [group is not FinancialSector]
and [group is not TechnologySector]
and [group is not CommunicationServicesSector]
and [group is not UtilitiesSector]
and [group is not RealEstateSector]

lmkwin

Add in:

and [name not contains 'Acquisition']
and [name not contains 'ETF']
and [name not contains 'Merger']
and [name not contains 'BDC']
and [200 days ago Close > 0]

knocks it down to 80

A lot of Blank Checks in the past year, for sure.

FYI, I haven't received a response from SC as yet. Not even a auto reply.

markd

I don't think I'd exclude acquisition (or merger) companies - put them in Finance - Specialty Finance (or investment services, or asset managers...). Also, finviz has GSBD as Financial - Credit Services, so SC should be able to classify it,too.

If you haven't received a reply - check your junk folder - if nothing there, send it again. Auto reply shouldn't fail.

lmkwin

I did check the junk, nothing but junk.

I agree that some are pretty easily classified, if one where to apply themselves. In my prior life I was a database integrity guy amongst other things. I created reporting tools for analysis including what I called Ref Check reports to continually check referential integrity.

But, I was a user of the data also. Many times, programmers do not use the systems they create. They only work on specs provided to them to accomplish some management desire, good/bad or indifferent. ACP would be a good example in StockCharts. I find it funny that most of the contributors, including Chief Martket Strategist Dave, and often Grayson, don't use ACP charts for their presentations, but yet.....it's the only thing that the programmers are working on, as far as I can tell.

Every suggestion that I've given SC has always been responded to that 'the system is complex and changes are given a look at, if they get around to changing that part or this part of the system. As I can discern, there have been no changes on the legacy system. They did ADD the Symbol Summary, but I can't recall a change in the last year at least. I could be wrong. Often am.

lmkwin

Update:



End of Update

But it looks like they did "fix" the issue reported.